Looking to build the lightest spinning rod possible

[MickD]

11 hours ago, Deephaven said:

measuring the natural frequency is really only an indicator that describes stiffness

No, it describes the stiffness to weight ratio, not just the stiffness.  A broom stick is very stiff, but its stiffness to weight ration is not very high.  Because it is heavy.  The natural frequency measurement is a direct measure of how fast the blank will recover.  If you want the fastest recovery, you want the blank with the highest natural frequency, and you want to put on the lightest possible running guides.

[SkinnyWaterBasser]

5 hours ago, uno said:

Hate to throw a wrench in your plans after you bought the guides, but 4 runners may not be enough. I usually have 8 total guides on a 7 ft spinning rod. You may even need 9 depending on how fast the action on the blank is. This is more advanced stuff, but since you are jumping into the deep end with high quality parts, you might as well build the best rod you can. The smaller the length of the blank that bends under moderate pressure (how fast the action is) the more guides you will need to get a good line path. If you don't put enough, your line will have flat spots and not follow the curve of the rod. The two line technique on anglers resource will help you visualize this. 

I bought another kit and I'm searching for a matching kb. The kb could replace a kt or not and I use all of them. I'm definitely out to do this right.

Just now, SkinnyWaterBasser said:

kit

Kt*

[Lead Head]

You will almost definitely need several coats with permagloss. It starts off super thin, and sets up super fast.

[SkinnyWaterBasser]

5 hours ago, uno said:

I see you are on the rod building site now, which is great. Best place you can get info. Guess I will continue here because I started here. I know CCS has been talking about, but wanted to give you some info in one place. "Medium light" doesn't mean anything, every blank maker is different. I looked up some good options, in order of power, strongest to weakest: PB701MLF 530, PB701LXF 430, NFC xray 732 422, SCV 70 ML 375, Batson eternity 72MLF 343, NFC 703 343. These are all CCS numbers which is the number of grams required to bend a rod 33% of its length. As you can see the point blank "light" is more powerful than all the other "medium lights." Also, note that the NFC 2 power rod is more powerful than the NFC 3 power rod. Having said all this, were I building the rod, I would probably give the PB701LXF a try.

I like that pb701lxf blank for sure the more I read the more I hear people say" hell with what it weighs it's the best" this is the part I'm over researching for sure but it's what makes it or breaks it. 

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

It’s hard to compare raw weights as each blank model has different dimensions. Even if they’re the same length and lure weight one might have a larger butt diameter. Couple tenths one way or the other isn’t a deal breaker and a slightly heavier one might score better on Micks resonance test. Use on the water is the only true test. Research and due diligence is important but you’re way overthinking this and could end up taking the joy out of the process. Good luck on your build. 

[MickD]

I notice on the Point Blank specs that both the Light and MedLight blanks have Action Angles of 77 degrees, meaning under the protocols of CCS, they are both the same action.  Yet they describe the Light as XFast and the MedLight as Fast.  

 

I fish the MedLight and consider it an "almost X-Fast"  ?  It is not quite as fast as a couple other rods with 80 degree AA's.  There is a slight difference in the powers of the blanks.  Since one can never have too many rods, take your best shot at selecting one and build the other later.

[SkinnyWaterBasser]

28 minutes ago, MickD said:

Since one can never have too many rods

Ain't that the truth. Lol

[Deephaven]

16 hours ago, MickD said:

No, it describes the stiffness to weight ratio, not just the stiffness.  A broom stick is very stiff, but its stiffness to weight ration is not very high.  Because it is heavy.  The natural frequency measurement is a direct measure of how fast the blank will recover.  If you want the fastest recovery, you want the blank with the highest natural frequency, and you want to put on the lightest possible running guides.

The natural frequency will go up with less mass or more stiffness.  It isn't ratiometric however.  As for the recovery, have you measured the same stick under load and not?  The natural frequency is the first bending mode which is indicative of the frequency it will ring at when excited.  Once a fish is no and their is static weight this will change.  Curious what you have found that states recovery is directly correlate able to the natural frequency.  If comparing to identical geometries I can see it that being possible, but without discussing the damping associated with the mode shape I don't see how you can state it describes the rods recovery.  It surely describes its stiffness.

[MickD]

7 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

The natural frequency will go up with less mass or more stiffness.  It isn't ratiometric however.  As for the recovery, have you measured the same stick under load and not?  The natural frequency is the first bending mode which is indicative of the frequency it will ring at when excited.  Once a fish is no and their is static weight this will change.  Curious what you have found that states recovery is directly correlate able to the natural frequency.  If comparing to identical geometries I can see it that being possible, but without discussing the damping associated with the mode shape I don't see how you can state it describes the rods recovery.  It surely describes its stiffness.

Yes on response to  less mass or more stiffness.  As the equation for cantilever beam indicates.  Not sure  what you mean by ratiometric.  Have not measured under load, don't know how that can be done.  By recovery I mean the velocity of the tip in recovering from a deflection.  Blanks with a true natural frequency (TNF) of 600 cycles per minute have to be recovering faster than blanks with a TNF of 500 cpm.  It is impossible for it to be otherwise. Most rod experts for many years have argued that sensitivity is proportional to natural frequency, but there was  no inexpensive way to measure it. I am using Android devices and a free sound analyzer app to measure TNF.  It correlates with my experience-generated evaluations of blanks/rod. Of course that is simply an opinion and not provable.  It shows how the TNF increases when the mass of guides, tiptops, and wraps are added to make the blank into a rod.  It shows  the advantage of what I call premium blanks in most cases and shows the advantage of titanium guides and tiptops relative to stainless steel of the same size and design.  I am not arguing that it answers all questions about the properties of blanks/rods, but it does offer one more objective measurement (TNF)  to the ones we already had, length, weight, power and action (CCS).  I submit that if  one can match all of these objective measures  from a blank he likes, he will find the new blank to perform very much like the first one.  

 

Your skepticism is similar to others who have  heard of it, but like them, you have  not tried it.  I suggest, if you are interested, that you try it.  I will be glad to provide a quick tutorial/description of the process.  You can message me.

[Deephaven]

Mick - first off, not arguing at all...just trying to understand.  Glad to take this to PM, but thought it was pertinent to the thread.

 

Modal response requires energy to excite said response.  Conveniently nearly any energy will have frequency content at that frequency thus providing input.  This is not the only force that will bring the rod back however.  The other is the static portion of the load.  The natural frequency is only the portion of the response that is dynamic.  ie, if you attach a brick to your rod and put a bend in it the recovery to the normal position has nothing to do with the modal response of the blank and everything to do with it's static stiffness.  Of course the higher the stiffness (leaving all other things the same) the higher the natural frequency.  That is what I thought you were implying at first until you responded to my post with a no...which made me inquire about what else there was and if there is any reference material as I am curious and constantly searching for new things to learn about.

 

As for a tutorial on the process, I can measure mode shapes in my sleep...but more interested in the application here.

[MickD]

27 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Of course the higher the stiffness (leaving all other things the same) the higher the natural frequency.  That is what I thought you were implying at first until you responded to my post with a no...which made me inquire about what else there was and if there is any reference material as I am curious and constantly searching for new things to learn about.

I said no because this process does not measure stiffness.  If it did I could get an answer with units of measure of something like inches per pound of deflection.  But  I cannot.  Yes, as stiffness increases without a mass increase, the stiffness to weight ratio will rise and the natural frequency will rise.   I am actually measuring the time of one cycle of free vibration of a blank/rod when its butt is restrained and the tip deflected and let go.  From that the natural frequency is calculated.  And the units I am using are cycles per minute as derived from a period of vibration measured in milliseconds.

 

Respectfully, I'm not going to get into a long debate about what the process is or isn't or its relevance.   It is clearly a method of measuring another important objective measurement of a blank/rod physical characteristic which can be used to better understand the blank/rod.  A characteristic that experts for many years have agreed is important to rod performance and one that until now has not been measurable without expensive equipment.   If someone wants to know the TNF of their blanks/rods  and how it changes with how they configure their blank into a rod then I will share the process.  All it takes is a method of securing the butt (forces are very low-a rod wrapping machine is adequate) an Android device, and a free app.

[Deephaven]

I have a laser vibrometer on my desk and can measure the Fn and complete rod response without an app.  What I am curious is how that is related to the velocity of the tip in response to a static and dynamic forcing function.  The dynamic portion I completely agree with.  Thought perhaps you had read something somewhere where someone has done the full study.

[MickD]

Try the process, then come back and give us the answer.  I have come up with the process on my own, not through any published info.  I adapted a free app to answer a question that only those with expensive equipment have before been able to answer.

 

I'll only answer this one question.  How can the tip velocity not be proportional to the natural frequency?  If I deflect two blanks to 3 inches, and let the tip go, and one has a higher natural frequency than the other, how can it not have a higher tip velocity (recovery speed from deflection) ?  

 

I don't mean to be rude, but I've been through this hole before.  And until one tries the process, gets the data, and thinks about how it correlates with not only the years' old opinions of experts, but also with how it correlates with one's own experience, I'm wasting my time discussing it. 

 

I invite any curious fisherman to try it.

[MikeK]

It seems to be a common belief among rod builders that weight added to a blank lowers sensitivity and the effect is more pronounced the closer the weight is to the tip.  If this is correct, the process that Mick has developed is the only simple measurement I've seen described that correlates to that.

[Alex from GA]

SkinnyWaterBasser,  The under 3 oz rods are both built on a Rainshadow IMMWS62MFX 6'2" 6-15 lb line 1.2 oz.  I use 6 lb mono and have caught over 6 lb bass and 8 lb bowfin/mudfish.  

[Deephaven]

16 hours ago, MickD said:

I'll only answer this one question.  How can the tip velocity not be proportional to the natural frequency?  If I deflect two blanks to 3 inches, and let the tip go, and one has a higher natural frequency than the other, how can it not have a higher tip velocity (recovery speed from deflection) ?  

Stating it another way to answer.  If two blanks have the same Fn will they always have the same tip velocity when pulled three inches down and let go?  The answer is no in these conditions.

1) One has a higher mass, but same Fn.  If built for power at the tip the higher mass rod put under a 3" static load will snap back faster than lighter rod.  The static load will put a force on like a spring, ie Hooke's law and this can easily overcome the resonance velocity.

2) Two rods with a different taper with the same Fn.  ie, one with more material at the tip.  The one with more material at the tip will have a faster response.

3) Two rods with the same Fn but a different Q at that frequency.  ie, a softer material or one that is more critically damped at the Fn of the rod.  This rod will also have a slower tip velocity when released from 3"

 

Perhaps I am over looking something.  If so I'd love to know what.  Definitely not trying to argue, but to learn.  I understand materials and measurements, but haven't applied this to fishing rods before.

 

Lastly, I know you said to try it, but I don't have two rods with the same Fn, hell I don't have two that are similar.  The measurement for me is easy, the target however hard to come by.  Glad to make some measurements to clarify however.

13 hours ago, MikeK said:

It seems to be a common belief among rod builders that weight added to a blank lowers sensitivity and the effect is more pronounced the closer the weight is to the tip.  If this is correct, the process that Mick has developed is the only simple measurement I've seen described that correlates to that.

Adding mass will always lower the Fn.  Ie slowing it's dynamic response.  It will also take more energy to move it statically (static as in DC or non-vibrational motion, think loading or static deflection).  His measurement definitely correlates to seeing how a blank evolves, but I am curious how it can compare blanks and what other factors are at play.

[MickD]

It's easy, free if one has an Android (Kindle works), it's still new so I'm  learning, we can learn together. I've yet to find a fallacy.  

[SkinnyWaterBasser]

I think it would be interesting to see the progression of the loss of natural frequency as components are added, grips, reel seat, guides etc... Also sounds like a good test to run on rods if you're buying them from the store, you could take a lot of guess work out of buying what's best on the rack. Lol

 

I ended up getting the NFC x-ray 722 in unsanded flat black. If I don't like it in the end I'll build another, but from what I hear those kistler z-bones are super sweet and wouldn't you know that's the blank they use. I'll build on a point blank or a mhx elite x. 

On 4/18/2022 at 9:47 PM, Alex from GA said:

SkinnyWaterBasser,  The under 3 oz rods are both built on a Rainshadow IMMWS62MFX 6'2" 6-15 lb line 1.2 oz.  I use 6 lb mono and have caught over 6 lb bass and 8 lb bowfin/mudfish.  

Man those are light( not the fish) lol I don't think Ill come close to that with an extra foot of graphite. Lol

2 minutes ago, SkinnyWaterBasser said:

build on a point blank or a mhx elite x. 

Next time

[MickD]

7 hours ago, SkinnyWaterBasser said:

I think it would be interesting to see the progression of the loss of natural frequency as components are added, grips, reel seat, guides etc.

Yes, very much so.  

 

 

[Lead Head]

I have 4 rods built on x-ray blanks and love them. Another 4 on NFC delta blanks and really like them too. I do want to point out that (as far as I know) Kistler hasn't used NFC blanks for around 2 years now.

[SkinnyWaterBasser]

31 minutes ago, MickD said:

Yes, very much so.  

 

 

I might have to get the details of how to find out and take measurements after the addition of each piece. My thinking is that the biggest loss in natural frequency comes once you put the tip top on. 

 

23 minutes ago, Lead Head said:

I have 4 rods built on x-ray blanks and love them. Another 4 on NFC delta blanks and really like them too. I do want to point out that (as far as I know) Kistler hasn't used NFC blanks for around 2 years now.

It's definitely not a deal breaker. Lol I've heard lots of good about the x-ray, and how did you build yours if you don't mind me asking? Grips? Guides? Reel seat? And what's the finished product weigh?

 

What are the difference in delta and x-ray? I've noticed there is a blank in the delta series that gets recommended for a dedicated frog rod. Are the delta series just more durable? Dedicated frog rod is going to be build #2

[MickD]

To give an idea on weights:  NFC DS 6100 blank, 6 ft 10 inch, called "Medium" power by NFC, measures ERN = 12.6, which is hardly what most would expect from a medium power blank.  Weighs 1.6 oz.  Fuji DPSSD size 17 seat and lock nut weighs .84 oz.  1 inch exotic burl ramps off each end of the seat + butt knob of same material weighs . 66 oz.  Guides weigh .141 oz (KLH 16-8-5.5M, 2 KB's, 4 KT's, the 16, the 8, and one KB are stainless, the rest titanium).  Rod so far weighs 3.245 oz.  The guide epoxy and the epoxy at the grip needs to be added yet.  So this rod will come in probably just under 3.5.  A lighter seat and lighter ramps/butt knob would easily be possible to bring it down to 3.0.  BUT, this blank is probably not powerful enough to be called ML power, IMHO.  A Point Blank at about ERN 16.2 would weigh 1.7 oz.  ERN 19.8 would weigh 1.76.

 

The problems with most claims of sub-3.0 oz rods is 1.  The builder doesn't know the actual power of the rod, and most will most likely be pretty low.  2.  The compromises to lower the weight will cost ergonomics.  My ERN 19.8 Point Blank 7 foot complete rod with size 17 Fuji seat weighs about 3.6 oz.  Has good power and fishes great.

[SkinnyWaterBasser]

As far as the reel seat goes I'm going to put a fuji skss with the hidden threads on. I'm very torn over grip material as I love how cork looks and feels but I'm interested in the less weight and better durability offered by carbon fiber, I'll end up buying both and see which grip setup gets the nod. 

[MickD]

1 minute ago, SkinnyWaterBasser said:

I might have to get the details of how to find out and take measurements after the addition of each piece. My thinking is that the biggest loss in natural frequency comes once you put the tip top on. 

I can message you the process.  The tiptop can be significant if stainless, from my experience.  It will depend somewhat on the power and action of the blank. I would definitely, with your priorities, go titanium.  The running guides are very significant.  You should be going small titaniums to minimize the drop in natural frequency.  If the blank is XF action or close then the reduction guides (KLH or equivalent) are either insignificant, or of minor significance.  The DS 6100 has the two larger reduction guides in stainless to use them up, (had them on hand-hard to tell the titaniums from stainless in this finish-they look fine) all the KT's are titanium (KT4's). 

 

I think I've said it before, but the highest natural frequency blanks I've tested, and I've tested a number of premium and less premium blanks, are Point Blanks.  

[SkinnyWaterBasser]

4 minutes ago, MickD said:

I can message you the process.  The tiptop can be significant if stainless, from my experience.  It will depend somewhat on the power and action of the blank. I would definitely, with your priorities, go titanium.  The running guides are very significant.  You should be going small titaniums to minimize the drop in natural frequency.  If the blank is XF action or close then the reduction guides (KLH or equivalent) are either insignificant, or of minor significance.  The DS 6100 has the two larger reduction guides in stainless to use them up, (had them on hand-hard to tell the titaniums from stainless in this finish-they look fine) all the KT's are titanium (KT4's). 

 

I think I've said it before, but the highest natural frequency blanks I've tested, and I've tested a number of premium and less premium blanks, are Point Blanks.  

I did go the titanium torzite route and will probably stay there no matter the rod build. I honestly don't mind throwing the money at the most expensive component because what a new nrx+ cost will be twice what I have into my build.